Age and Correlation of the Moorefield Shale (Upper Mississippian) in Its Type Area, Northeastern Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 70 Article 14 2016 Age and Correlation of the Moorefield hS ale (Upper Mississippian) in its Type Area, Northeastern Arkansas O. Dalu University of Arkansas, Fayetteville W. S. Coffey Devon Energy W. L. Manger University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Geology Commons, Paleontology Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Recommended Citation Dalu, O.; Coffey, W. S.; and Manger, W. L. (2016) "Age and Correlation of the Moorefield Shale (Upper Mississippian) in its Type Area, Northeastern Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 70 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol70/iss1/14 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 70 [2016], Art. 14 Review Age and Correlation of the Moorefield Shale (Upper Mississippian) in its Type Area, Northeastern Arkansas O. Dalu1, W.S. Coffey2, and W.L. Manger1 1Department of Geosciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 2Devon Energy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Correspondence: [email protected] Running Title: Age and Correlation of the Moorefield Shale (Upper Mississippian), Northeastern Arkansas Abstract biostratigraphically useful fossils, likely extends to at least the middle Chesterian. Thus, the bulk of the The name Moorefield was proposed by Adams and Moorefield formation represents the Chesterian, not the Ulrich (1904) for exposures of gray to brown, Meramecian Series. This age assignment is phosphatic shale with a basal limestone, overlying the complicated further by the reduction of the Lower Mississippian Boone Formation, and underlying lithostratigraphic units comprising the type the Upper Mississippian Batesville Sandstone, in the Meramecian Series (Lane and Brenckle 2005), and a vicinity of Moorefield, Independence County, lack of ammonoid assemblages in its type area, St. northeastern Arkansas. Gordon (1944) 1) restricted the Louis County, Missouri. name Moorefield to the lower limestone-bearing interval, 2) applied a new name, Ruddell, to the History of Moorefield Stratigraphic Investigations succeeding shale section that comprises the bulk of the interval, with a type area near Moorefield, and 3) The earliest record of systematic geological interpreted the interval contacts as unconformities. observations in northern Arkansas was by David Dale The name Ruddell was used for the revised Geological Owen, in a volume treating the northern counties Map of Arkansas (1993), but later publications by the published in 1858. Owen was appointed state Arkansas Geological Survey and other sources refer geologist by Governor E. N. Conway on April 20, the entire interval to the Moorefield Shale, and report a 1857. He arrived in Arkansas in early October, 1857, maximum thickness of 91.44 m. (300 feet). and began working in the northeastern corner, Greene Age assignments for the Moorefield Shale are County, proceeding westward across the northern two based almost entirely on ammonoid cephalopods (e.g. tiers of counties. The work was done on horseback and Gordon 1965, Saunders et al. 1977, Korn and Titus supported by horse-drawn wagons, focusing on 2011). Brachiopods (e.g. Girty 1911) have provided a potential economic mineral deposits. Independence supporting role, but never to the precision of the County was the fourth county visited, and Owen’s ammonoids. Initially, Gordon (1965) recognized two descriptions comprise eight pages of his first 256 page ammonoid zones and four subzones through all the report (Owen 1858). Owen recognized the Moorefield, except the base. Korn and Titus (2011) Archimedes Limestone (=Pitkin Limestone), and what reexamined Gordon’s published ammonoid is likely the Batesville Sandstone overlying a 9.14 m. assemblages, and made additional collections from the (30 foot) section of brown-black shale with limestone type Moorefield. They recognized only two intervals that is probably the Moorefield Shale, but did Moorefield ammonoid zones: the lower Goniatites not name either interval. The northern counties report eganensis - Girtyoceras welleri zone, succeeded by the included at least some description of the geology of 18 upper Goniatites multiliratus zone concentrated near counties. It was followed by a second report on the the middle of the interval. The best age assignment for middle and southern counties, published in 1860 that these abundant, middle Moorefield ammonoid concluded his survey of Arkansas. Owen died on assemblages is to the lower Chesterian Series (Korn November 13, 1860. and Titus 2011). The unfossiliferous lower Moorefield During Reconstruction, the Arkansas legislature Shale spans the Meramecian-Chesterian boundary. appointed a series of state geologists and funded some The upper section, above the ammonoid occurrences, geological work, but it was not until January 19, 1887 but also barren of ammonoids, and other that an Arkansas Geological Survey was organized, Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 70, 2016 77 Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2016 77 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 70 [2016], Art. 14 O. Dalu, W.S. Coffey, and W.L. Manger with J. C. Branner as State Geologist, and a staff of the Moorefield Shale in 1911. He reviewed the young geologists that would become well-known in the lithostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic age profession. Again, the Survey was charged with an assignments for the Moorefield, although he retained assessment of potential economic mineral occurrences, the name “Spring Creek Limestone” of Williams some of which had been identified by Owen (1858, (1895), even though he knew it was preoccupied, 1860). In particular, the Survey was to evaluate the arguing that its chronostratigraphic importance validity of a gold rush that had developed in the mid- outweighed an application of priority (Fig. 3). Girty 1880s in the Ouachita Mountain region. In fact, the (1911) was equivocal about age assignments for the first publication of the new geological survey authored interval, but concluded that the lower portion of the by T. B. Comstock (1888) exposed the Ouachita gold section, the Spring Creek Limestone, was Meramecian, rush as a scam. On a brighter side, the Branner Survey based mainly on brachiopods. He correlated the higher hired the well-known geologist Richard Alexander portions of the Moorefield Shale with the Kaskaskia Fullerton Penrose Jr. to investigate manganese Limestone/Formation/ Group of Hall, 1857, which occurrences in northeastern Arkansas, particularly the became the Chesterian Group of Worthen (1860), and area surrounding Batesville, Independence County, that later the Chesterian Series of Worthen (1866). proved to be a legitimate resource. Mackenzie Gordon Jr. (1944), U.S. Geological The Penrose report (1891) was the first volume Survey, reviewed the stratigraphic relationships of the published by the Arkansas Geological Survey for work in 1890. It provided a stratigraphic column (Fig. 1), but from the current perspective, there are several problems. Most significantly, Penrose shows the Fayetteville Shale lying between the Boone Chert and the Batesville Sandstone in Independence County (Fig. 1). In fact, that shale has become known as the Moorefield Shale, while the Fayetteville Shale lies above the Batesville Sandstone. Penrose was a little closer to current thinking by assigning the Boone Chert and what would be Moorefield Shale to the Osagean Group, now Osagean Series, while the Batesville and Fayetteville intervals are assigned to the Genevieve or Boston Group, historically regarded as Meramecian (Fig. 1). Currently, the Fayetteville Shale is regarded as belonging to the Upper Chesterian Series. The accepted naming and lithostratigraphic correlation of the Moorefield and associated units reflects the work of Adams and Ulrich on the lead and zinc deposits in northern Arkansas, published by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1904 (Fig. 2). Adams and Ulrich (1904) moved the Fayetteville to its proper position, and named the Moorefield Shale, indicating that it succeeded the underlying Boone Limestone unconformably, and was conformably overlain by the Batesville Sandstone (Fig. 2). They also included the Spring Creek Limestone Member at the base of the Moorefield that had been proposed by H.S Williams (1895). Unfortunately, the name Spring Creek was preoccupied by a unit of that name in the Pennsylvanian succession of Texas named by Noah Drake (1893), ironically the third chairman of the Department of Geology at the University of Arkansas. George H. Girty, a well-known U.S. Geological Survey Fig. 1: Stratigraphic Section in the Vicinity of Batesville, paleontologist, published a description of the fauna of Independence County (Penrose, 1891). Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 70, 2016 78 http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol70/iss1/14 78 Journal of the